Isn't there a correlation between prosperity and slowing population growth? That would make the solution "do as much as possible to increase the prosperity of the most people to the greatest extent".

Sounds easy!

I'm not so sure about Malthus. There has never been a significant and sustained reduction in overall human population in recorded history, and any setbacks have obviously been overcome in one way or another. His theory always struck me as a variation of biblical apocalypse without all the crazy drugs imagery. I find cause for optimism when the idea of one day constructing pretty much anything at all through molecular nano-assemblers is, at the very least, considered a plausible theory.

If I can be said to have faith in anything, it is in the power of human ingenuity to conceive solutions to human problems and technology to execute those solutions. For all the pessimism people feel because we don't have flying cars and domed cities, there are some almost magical wonders in concept that have practical value. I think there's at least some reason to hope Malthusian apocalypse is anything but inevitable.

(August 13, 2012 at 4:01 am)Ryantology Wrote: I'm not so sure about Malthus. There has never been a significant and sustained reduction in overall human population in recorded history, and any setbacks have obviously been overcome in one way or another. His theory always struck me as a variation of biblical apocalypse without all the crazy drugs imagery. I find cause for optimism when the idea of one day constructing pretty much anything at all through molecular nano-assemblers is, at the very least, considered a plausible theory.

I think that Malthus was correct at least in his basic principle that the human population is growing almost exponentially, while resources are limited. Hence in an essay he wrote that "the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to reproduce subsistence for man." (An Essay on the Principle of Population, p 13). That part sounds reasonable to me, at least. Yes, he may have misjudged our capacity for increasing food production through technological innovation. It is quite an achievement that humans today - despite their vastly increased numbers - are consuming more calories per day than people who lived a few centuries ago. This was accomplished only by the advancement of technology. Nonetheless, the fact is that the basic resources are still limited, and so there may eventually come a time when this limit (whatever it might be) will impose strong constraints on human population growth.

(August 13, 2012 at 2:40 am)Minimalist Wrote: What about us?

You and me? Don't worry Min; with any luck we will both have carked it before the situation becomes personally inconvenient.

Interesting observations from all of you. For some reason this topic is weighing heavily on my mind these days.

(August 13, 2012 at 4:01 am)Ryantology Wrote: Isn't there a correlation between prosperity and slowing population growth? That would make the solution "do as much as possible to increase the prosperity of the most people to the greatest extent".
I find cause for optimism when the idea of one day constructing pretty much anything at all through molecular nano-assemblers is, at the very least, considered a plausible theory.

This to me sounds a bit absurd. Putting faith in technology that does not exist is more than just "optimistic" especially considering that prosperity will not be increasing when nations are killing other nations just to feed the masses. Who's going to invent this technology? How much will it cost to own and operate it? Will all nations be able to afford such technology? I mean it's a ridiculous notion at this point. Meanwhile, while we're fighting to eat, no one's doing anything about the CO2 that's being released from the sea floors because of the global warming that's gone unchecked due to the amount of energy needed to pull more resources from our dying planet.



I don't see any kind of solution posted in this thread ... and very possibly there isn't one. However, 20 years from now when we have a head count on this planet of 9 billion people, someone, somewhere is going to have to say, "I personally am taking responsibility and I am not going to make any children in my lifetime."

I don't think hostile population control will work either, but without governments committing mass genocide by way of epidemic or war, I don't ever see people standing up and taking responsibility.
It's wishful thinking to say that your kids aren't going to be a detriment when everyone else is thinking the exact same thing.

Do the math. In only 50 years, without world war and improved health care, we could easily have 12 to 14 billion people on this planet. What then? At some point it'll be too late to start taking responsibility.

I think population control has to happen immediately and drastically as food shortages are already increasing all over the globe.http://www.thepanamadigest.com/2012/07/i...is-coming/

(August 13, 2012 at 5:35 am)padraic Wrote:

(August 13, 2012 at 2:40 am)Minimalist Wrote: What about us?

You and me? Don't worry Min; with any luck we will both have carked it before the situation becomes personally inconvenient.

Apres moi, le deluge!

(this post, not aimed at anyone in particular)


This happened in the 30's because of a drought. The term Global Warming hadn't even been thought up at the time and the drought is now actually considered mild by today's standards. This environmental disaster will again look like a parade compared to what's coming. Two major problems result from over population:
One, we need to burn far more fuel to provide, food, clothing, housing and all the extras for all the new people. This steadily compounds our greenhouse emissions, and warms our seas. This has been and will continue to effect our weather severely. Droughts and food shortages are already becoming more commonplace.
Two, we no longer have the real estate to grow enough food or the clean water for consumption and cleanliness.


Sorry, but this planet does not have endless resources, and denying that fact is probably going to lead to our own demise.
When people don't have food and water, when they don't have a decent place to live, and when they realize their children have no future, the shit will hit the fan and our society will come crumbling down around us. How anyone can be dismissive about over population is beyond me.

Quote:Sorry, but this planet does not have endless resources, and denying that fact is probably going to lead to our own demise.

I'm never amazed by humanity's capacity to deny reality.

Religion is a big part of that, of course.

(August 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Interesting observations from all of you. For some reason this topic is weighing heavily on my mind these days.

It did me as well, until I read and looked into global problems a little closer, and now I think we're completely fucked.

We've got three huge wammys! There's global warming, then global dimming (which has been hiding the true power that is global warming) and over population.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA74df19b...H8ufOavkVg
Also we only have a few years to do something about it. Higher temperatures will affect sea levels, food production and with an over populated planet we face inevitable war and death.
If that natural storage of methane gas is released, we're finished. It won't matter what we do by then.

You know my solution? Just forget about it, there's nothing you can do about it. Let people think nothing's wrong, they'll see the real world soon enough. Just live your life and enjoy the show.

(August 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm)Cinjin Wrote: (this post, not aimed at anyone in particular)

1930's Dust Bowl

This happened in the 30's because of a drought. The term Global Warming hadn't even been thought up at the time and the drought is now actually considered mild by today's standards. This environmental disaster will again look like a parade compared to what's coming. Two major problems result from over population:
One, we need to burn far more fuel to provide, food, clothing, housing and all the extras for all the new people. This steadily compounds our greenhouse emissions, and warms our seas. This has been and will continue to effect our weather severely. Droughts and food shortages are already becoming more commonplace.
Two, we no longer have the real estate to grow enough food or the clean water for consumption and cleanliness.


Sorry, but this planet does not have endless resources, and denying that fact is probably going to lead to our own demise.
When people don't have food and water, when they don't have a decent place to live, and when they realize their children have no future, the shit will hit the fan and our society will come crumbling down around us. How anyone can be dismissive about over population is beyond me.

Wasn't just a drought, we hand our hands in that.

"The rain follows the plow" - or so farmers had been told. Food shortages, btw, misleading. What they have is a money shortage. Not always in the way we might imagine, alot of times people would be willing to pay a premium, but it isn't worth shipping them the food regardless (compared to dumping it to a preferred customer with streamlined logistics for pennies on the lb by the metric ton).

(August 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Cinjin Wrote: This to me sounds a bit absurd. Putting faith in technology that does not exist is more than just "optimistic" especially considering that prosperity will not be increasing when nations are killing other nations just to feed the masses. Who's going to invent this technology? How much will it cost to own and operate it? Will all nations be able to afford such technology? I mean it's a ridiculous notion at this point. Meanwhile, while we're fighting to eat, no one's doing anything about the CO2 that's being released from the sea floors because of the global warming that's gone unchecked due to the amount of energy needed to pull more resources from our dying planet.

Not as absurd as it might seem, as I do not feel unjustified confidence that the vague idea I mentioned will work. I consider it probably the only workable possibility. All other ideas are merely limiting the effect, after all (which is, of course, no less important).

I think that any of this technology will be invented for other reasons and find wider applications, as often happens. We need solar energy, as an example, in the worst way, and ubiquitous, cheap photovoltaics could potentially solve a great deal of the world's energy needs, but you can't market it on the basis of saving the world. You have to emphasize its practical benefits. I do not look to technology as our certain savior, just our best chance. I just don't see any other plausible means.

Also, if it makes a difference, I do not plan to have kids.